Like Button

Saturday, March 10, 2018

News Weakly - 3/10/2018

Diversity by Force
I don't follow the Oscars, but the news item says Best Actress winner Frances McDormand called for an inclusion rider in the future. The best guess about what that would mean is the stipulation that future movies "could require the cast be 50 percent female, 40 percent underrepresented ethnic groups, 20 percent people with disabilities, and 5 percent L.G.B.T. people." Now, if you're doing the math, it looks like we're at 115% and would necessarily exclude men, but, of course, that would be faulty math. I mean, it is entirely possible for one or two men to be in the "underrepresented", "people with disabilities", or "LGBT" groups, so there. The idea is that no longer can studios consider things like market forces, what the crowd wants, superstar status, artistic preferences, and such. Now it is purely demographics. Start there and work your way out. The implied claim is that diversity (even if forced) makes things better. Good for you if you think that works. (I'm concerned that we, as a society, have already determined that "think" is not really an important part of our vocabulary anymore.)

Assigning Blame
One might think that the one to blame for the Florida school shooting was ... you know ... the shooter. That would be a mistake. Apparently the real culprit is the authorities. One (of, I'm sure, quite a few more) of the survivors will be suing the Broward County Public Schools, the principal, and the school resource officer. According to his attorney, "The failure of Broward County Public Schools, and of the principal and school resource officer to adequately protect students, and in particular our client, from life-threatening harm were unreasonable, callous and negligent."

I suppose if we can't ban guns, we can hold people with money responsible, right? (Hey, I wonder if the shooter can sue, too. You know, "Their failure to prevent me from shooting those people was unreasonable, callous and negligent." Surely he could throw in the president, the NRA, and the police, too.)

This is What Happens
For decades we've been presented with stories, images, movies, and shows about how the really bright, intelligent, and even wise people are the youth. Adults could learn a lot from them. No, the adults have nothing much to offer to them; kids are the gurus, the rabbis, the seers of the age. It has gone on so long that of course we'd get to the point that 21 children would be suing the Trump administration for "its dangerous fossil fuel policies." The article says that "the young plaintiffs assert that the government's actions to promote fossil fuel emissions violate the basic constitutional rights of future generations."

What do they want? Besides punishing those who disagree with them (which would be anyone who even questions their position), what else do they have in mind? What are they doing in their own lives to affect the problem? (Because from what I can see the loudest voices protesting the problem are doing so from SUVs and private airplanes.) Are they aware that the same science that tells them there is climate change tells them that it is unstoppable? Are they aware of the fact that if it is true that climate change is caused by humans (and that's still a question), they still can't make everyone submit (like China, India, every other sovereign nation)? Do they understand that the only means of affecting the so-called human-caused climate change problem is a demolition of the old order? Are they willing to give up things (like cars, technology, comfort, cheap power, etc.) for what they see as a massive problem? It would appear that they are not aware that the administration is not "promoting fossil fuel emissions", but in today's world where the wise ones are children and truth is suffering a greater decline than the environment is, the truth in this case shouldn't be an issue, I suppose.

International Women's Day
On International Women's Day Myanmar State Counsellor Suu Kyi was quoted as saying, "A country's human rights values will be enhanced when women are granted their rights." This is the same person who had her Holocaust Museum award rescinded because she and her league for democracy "have refused to cooperate with United Nations investigators, fed hate attacks on the Rohingya and denied reporters access to areas where alleged abuses have taken place." I wonder if Jane Toppan would have made a popular "women's rights" speaker?

Filed Under "You Can't Make This Stuff Up"
The headline is truly a stunner: "Pornhub pulls Benjamin Thomas Wolf's marijuana ad over abuse claims." That is wrong in so many ways without including the story itself. 1) A congressional candidate is accused of sexual abuse. 2) A congressional candidate is advertising on a porn site. 3) Pornhub is a porn website on which you can find all manner of "sexual abuse" videos, but they're pulling this guy's ad because of alleged abuse. 4) The candidate is running on a "legalize marijuana" platform. I suppose you might guess that the details of the story won't make it any better.

I recently wrote about smartphones and some of the effects they are having on our lives. One was the tendency to read less. You know ... "TL;DR" -- "too long; didn't read." Well, good news! They've come out with the TL;DR Bible that will reduce God's Word into bite-sized snippets that are easier to bother reading instead of that whole big thing. You're welcome.

I know it's true; I read it on the Internet.

1 comment:

Craig said...

In theory I don’t have a problem with a diversity rider. If an actor has the clout to negotiate one and the studio agreed to one, then that’s their decision. Of course, I also think it’s stupid. What happens if their aren’t enough trans/Uighur/camera people available to meet the quota?

It is interesting to see that the very government that liberals trust to oversee the various gun control measures they propose, failed so spectacularly and in so many ways in this particular incident.